[Closed] Sub 5 100 miler...can't do it.

i am a 8 hour man myself........... 😆

you must be a fit old bu55er........... 😉

What route and bike are we talking about here?

yeah... I'm still working on beating 17mph average over that sort of distance, although I include ice cream stops in my time 🙂

You just need to get lucky with the wind one day

Edric road bike, Bucks roads includes the Ridgeway, Ivinghoe Beacon and Dunstable Downs. Obviously I could drop the climbs, but that would be defeating the point.

I have a theory on this - you need some short sharp climbs that give you some quality long descents where you can make up more than the time you lost on the climb. Maybe try that.

That's a good time over that terrain .Have you time trialled over that distance? on the flat you must be quick.

Oldy, you need to learn to sprint!
Anyway, I've done it once, Manchester to Scarborough, 4.58. Had a tailwind though, and climbed over the pennines and garrowby hill on the way. It's about riding fast All The Time, the hills don't knock that much time off, its the pottering in between that counts.
I rode back the next day, and died a thousand deaths, taking 7 hours..

I did 125 miles in 7hours 20mins on an mtb with slicks on and full panniers.Hell of a tail wind from Cornwall to Somerset.Best100 mile timetrial was 4: 08 :17 but that was the day the comp record went to 3:27

Edric only upto 25 miles.
Looking at the GPS though not a scientific approach I have three speeds, 24 plus on the flat, 17/19 undulating and 12 on the climbs. It also shows that the 30 miles around the Chilterns near Wendover are the killer miles.
Belly weight I reckon 😳 need to loose more.

3:27 for 100 miles?

****.

4.08 ****
My races are very fast but short, i.e 51Km in just over an hour, that's about 32MPH I think tops, but more often 29MPH average.

I have only ridden that way a couple of times but know the hills you mean a couple of minutes lost climbing takes ages to get back on the flat

3:27 for 100 miles?

now its 3:22 45!! on an out and back course

3:11:11 for a straight out ride

Oldgit that's quicker than my best 25 miler which is 56:12 and a bloody long time ago as well

Whoa, that's closed circuit road race, not solo. I've only been under the hour 2 up.

Which is funny because i'm rubbish at road race stuff!!

Always amazes me how much additional effort is required to get even just a 1mph increase in average over a good distance.

[i]It also shows that the 30 miles around the Chilterns near Wendover are the killer miles.[/i]

Hardly a surprise, stern hills out that way

I thought for a moment that this thread was about the impossibility of riding 100 miles on an Orange Sub 5! 😉

Always amazes me how much additional effort is required to get even just a 1mph increase in average over a good distance.

that's because you square the velocity in the energy equation, (mass x velocity^2) so twice as much speed = four times the effort. At higher speeds even 1 mph makes a massive difference.

I think I'd struggle to do 5:16, net alone sub-4, chapeau!

Blimey I've got my first 100 mile sportive next weekend, and to be honest I'm just hoping on finishing on the same day!!!

Silverstone 100 and I think the route drops into Bucks and that on the way round

ron, I've raced at Silverstone and on some of the roads nearby and you'd have to come a long way south to hit hills. Nice though.

Having seen him in action, I can add that the 'oldgit', is one fit old git.

Did 200 in 10.27 last weekend.
Was made harder by being at night time. Rolling terrain, but no beasts.
Reckon with a small team of similar riders I could go sub 9.

Impressive achievement. Possibly makes it less likely that I'll ask to meet up for a ride at Woburn as I'm really along way from doing 100miles at any pace

Have you heard any more on Woburn. I heard some fairly negative stuff today. I'm a bit loathed to stoke the rumour mill at the moment so won't type it here.

i did the south downs way (so 100 miles) a few weekends ago. Took me 16 hours. Hope you're all jealous

I had my first road bike ride in the week - seeing if I could work around an injury.
Figured I'd give it a go as on the 29er on mtn bike tyres I was averaging 14mph around a 60 mile Watford - Wendover return route.

It was a 20yr old+ (?), 26lb, Claude Butler touring bike and I went with a friend whom I am quicker than on the XC riding. I was horrified how slow I was. Maybe this exposes the lack of cycling muscle having not ridden a bike between the ages of 18-41 (I'm 46).

Won't be buying a road bike any day soon!

Can anyone point me in the direction of a gpx file for the South Downs Way? I want to give it a go next week. (I don't mean to hijack the post!!)

went with a friend whom I am quicker than on the XC riding. I was horrified how slow I was.

I have the same experience. I just insist on mtb rides 🙂 I don't even have a bike excuse, my road bikes fine, reasonably light, works well.

I think technical riding of all sorts (roots, ruts etc.) knocks off more speed when not practiced regularly then you'd give credit for. Of course the real answer is to buy the roadbike, get quick on that and you'd be absolutely flying off road.

Sub 5 100's must be fairly common surely

Probably not as common as someone who hangs out with decent cyclists thinks 😉

Chapeau for 5:16, I'd struggle to do 100 let alone bother looking at a watch.

Mr Wazz loads of SDW info on here inc GPS files I think
[url= http://www.southdownsdouble.net/ ]www.southdownsdouble.net[/url]
you don't have to go both ways 😯

Obi_Twa - Blocked
I have a theory on this - you need some short sharp climbs that give you some quality long descents where you can make up more than the time you lost on the climb. Maybe try that.

Perpetual motion is discovered!

It was a 20yr old+ (?), 26lb, Claude Butler touring bike

Won't be buying a road bike any day soon!

so youve tried the road bike equivalent of riding a supermarket bike really and written it off .... if your friends road bike was anything half decent it`ll have been 6-8lbs lighter than your bike .... and he will have had STI units not downtube shifters - as well as significantly better gearing - youll have had a 14tooth lowest sprocket and likely 39:52 upfront or 28:42:52

bit like taking a metro to an F1 race really

bit like taking a metro to an F1 race really

At least make it a 6R4 metro 😉

I agree with trail_rat, get yourself a proper road bike ( 14 - 18lb), proper gearing ( 11-25 or 27) etc and you'll be amazed at the difference

Perpetual motion is discovered!

No no - it's easier to hammer up something short and then gain a good boost on a gradual climb.. Body's fatigue related to effort and time is not linear...

I reckon maybe I could do 5h30 on the flat, could have done sub 5 perhaps when I was doing more distance work.. but with hills no chance. You've done well there.

You've got me tempted now... *opens tracklogs looking for the flattest 100 mile route*

Wow, sub 5 hrs for 100miles. That's going some. Sorry the state the bl**ding obvious, but surely depends on the route you pick? What's a realistic ft of ascent in 100miles to be in with a chance?

Unless I was with a group I don't think I could get near 100 miles in sub 5 hours. I ride a fair bit too, 290 miles last week.

Did an 83 mile ride on Friday from Kilmarnock down to the Solway coast and it took me 4:46, which was an average of 17.5mph, rode back home on the Saturday in 4:23 with an average of 18.5mph, average after the first 50 odd miles was 19.6 but the next 30 miles was fairly hilly. I can't see that I could have got that ride home down by 20 minutes and then done another 20 in the last hour.

Flat route and a tailwind and a lot more distance training is the only way I could do it.

No no - it's easier to hammer up something short and then gain a good boost on a gradual climb.. Body's fatigue related to effort and time is not linear...

That's quite different and I'm not sure I agree - if you are trying hard properly you'll be working and fatiguing constantly throughout the ride.

Well riding at constant effort is something else. I think the jury's out on constant effort in time trials vs hammering up hills.

I mean if you ride 10 mins at 230W, that's one thing. If you had a really steep up and a long down, then that might be 1 min at 300W and 9 min at 120W.. which would be faster? Hmm.

But you can't get more than the energy you gained out. Simple conservation of energy.

I could tailor a route to make it doable, but where's the fun in that. The GPS shows 24MPH on the flat roads and 17/19MPH on the undulating. If I knocked out the Chilterns with all the 12MPH climbs and moderated the pace elsewhere then it would be achievable.

molgrips, you seem to be suggesting that you'd be more efficient if you sprinted for a minute then cruised slowly to a standstill ad infinitum which wouldn't really work. It'll always be faster to work consistently at the lowest effort to attain the target rather than going above and below threshold (at least for this kind of 5ish hr effort).

FWIW, my mate did 497 (ish) miles in 24hrs last year 😉 (He did win the national 24hr TT, mind)

Clubber, I meant if you had a hill which was very steep on the upward bit and very long and gradual on the downward bit. I am weighing up the possible effects of this kind of hill in my mind...

The non-linearity of fatigue in response to exercise actually means that it's definitely easier to keep a constant pace. After all.. but hmm.. wait.. on the way DOWN, the faster you go the more energy you lose to air resistance.. time to dust of integral calculus.. 🙂

But you can't get more than the energy you gained out. Simple conservation of energy.

If you think this needs pointing out, then you've misunderstood what I'm getting at, since it should be obvious that I'm not that stupid!

thanks 29er Keith - I plan on splitting the double over two days with a nice sleep in between 🙂

You've got it - going fast (DH) is very inefficient since air drag increases exponentially.

Working hard up a steep hill is also inefficient as you move away from aerobic effort not to mention that it only works so long as you're well fuelled and relatively fresh.

Yes.. even a short anaerobic effort seems to take a lot out of you.

So the consensus - constant power, but slack off a bit on descents and take a few cheeky rests on the steeper bits.

[i]I could tailor a route to make it doable[/i]

I don't really see the point in doing that oldgit, and I don't think you do either. I don't see the 'must get to 20mph' as a target to beat no matter how.

I always though faster climbing (to keep the average speed up) would be the key to better times (my best 100 round here undulating with a few short sharp climbs is 5:40) You don't think so Clubber?

could tailor a route to make it doable, but where's the fun in that.

Where's the harm though? Do it once on any course and you've broken the psychological factor of doing it. I'd have thought any 100 miler is going to have hills enough without searching them out, even undulating the height would rack up... can't see any possibility of it being easy!

I didn't say that fast climbing is bad! I just said that any climbing will reduce your average (the downhill will never 'pay back' what you lose). Climbing flat out will also reduce your average on a ride of the sort of length we're discussing. If you go hard up a climb then you'll need to recover from that effort at some point (since you can't sustain an effort over your aerobic capacity indefinitely without fading) - you want to keep within or as close to your aerobic limit as possible to be able to maintain speed over the course of the event - Tortoise and hare basically.

FWIW, I comfortably did 100 miles in 4:30 (a while back when I was fit...) but on the Bristol to Bath cycle path which is flat though it was reasonably windy. My average on hilly courses would have been significantly less.

I mean if you ride 10 mins at 230W, that's one thing. If you had a really steep up and a long down, then that might be 1 min at 300W and 9 min at 120W

If I understand this then you are saying that by doing 300W uphill you'll save enough time to drop your power by 50% to finish the remainder of the distance in the same time?

I may misunderstand but you are dreaming!

cynic-al - I was mulling it over.. and came to the same conclusion you did - see later post.

Although re nickc - if the climb is short enough ie less than say 20 secs, it may well be worth hammering up it since you may be using your ATP-PC cycle and not fatiguing yourself much.

One mountain mayhem I was on form and put in six or so laps all within a minute of each other, extremely consistent. However my average HR dropped from about 180 to 160. So I was getting more and more tired, but still putting in the same times. I think it was because I learned the course really well and I found myself putting in short sharp sprints up certain climbs at the right point allowing me to roll through much more efficiently.

Seems like my muscles had recovered enough ATP to sprint for short periods in the 3 or so hours between laps, but not to work flat out.

That's quite possible but 1 hr on, 3hrs off is not the same as a 5hr effort so different strategies will work.

FWIW, I comfortably did 100 miles in 4:30 (a while back when I was fit...) but on the Bristol to Bath cycle path which is flat though it was reasonably windy. My average on hilly courses would have been significantly less.

What? you did it 8 times?

No I know. But you see what I am getting at. During each lap I got the same times with different strategies, and less overall energy expenditure for the later ones. Now I admit traffic and familiarity with the technical bits may have had an effect...